If the maker of a note or the drawee or acceptor of a bill changes his residence after the note is made or the bill is drawn or accepted, what must be done by the holder depends upon the place to which he has removed. If the removal is to a place within the same state, we have already considered the question of what is due diligence in the holder by way of inquiry for the new residence and a demand there,1 as to paper not made payable at a particular place; upon paper so payable, the change of residence, whether in the state or out of it, is perfectly immaterial. The demand is still to be made at the place designated in accordance with the rules heretofore given.2 If that particular place of business has been removed, no demand is necessary,3 or at any rate is necessary only under peculiar circumstances.4 But as to a note not made so payable, a removal out of the state by the maker dispenses with the necessity of a demand upon the maker.5 The holder is not compelled to follow the maker out of the state; but if the absence is temporary, service of demand is necessary at his residence or place of business, or due diligence should be shown in an attempt to find the residence6 or place of business. The same will be the rule as to one of the joint makers of a note.7 But the maker may have left an agent in the state, and inquiry should be made for one at least at the place of former residence.8 But if the maker was a nonresident at the time the note was made, the fact that it is dated in the state does not excuse a demand upon the maker.9 The maker, upon his removal, may leave a deposit in the state to pay the note, but he should so inform the holder; for if the holder has no knowledge of the fact, a demand will not be necessary,10 presupposing, however, due inquiry for an agent on the part of the holder. If the acceptor of a bill changes his residence, the same rule ought to govern a demand upon him as upon the maker of a promissory note.11 And as to the drawee of a bill, it is conceived that the same rules ought to be applied to his change of residence.12

1 See Sec. 259, ante.

2 Shaw v. Reed, 12 Pick. 132; Far-well v. St. Paul Trust Co., 45 Minn. 495.

3Smith v. Poillon, 87 N. Y. 590; and see Sec. 258, ante,

4 See Sec. 258, ante.

5 See Sec. 259, ante, note 21.

6 Taylor v. Snyder, 3 Denio, 145; McClelland v. Bishop, 42 Ohio St 113. If a sailor is on the sea demand upon him is excused. Moore v. Coffield, 12 N. C. 247. See also McKee v. Bos well, 33 Mo. 5G7.

7 McClelland v. Bishop, 42 Ohio St 113. See Smith v. Little, 10 N. H. 526, a case of non-residence at the time of making of the note and not of removal from state. The decision is wrong, for the rule differs where, at the time the note was made, the maker lived out of the state. In the latter case demand upon him is necessary. Spies v. Gilmore, 1 N. Y. 321; Bradley r. Patton, 51 Ala. 108. Contra, Rick-etts v. Pendleton, 14 Md. 320; and see note 9, infra.